generate_migration_strategy

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (structured prompt yielding stages, dual-write/dual-read plans, validation, cutover, rollback), but says nothing about side effects, permissions, whether output is persisted, or determinism of the generation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the return-shape detail follows, with every clause earning its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a four-parameter generation tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what it does and what it returns. The remaining gap is routing guidance relative to the other planning/architecture generators, which limits it from being fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including constraints like downtime tolerance and deadlines. The description adds no syntax, format, or example guidance beyond the loose 'one technology to another' framing, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Generate a migration strategy from one technology / version / pattern to another'), which is clearly distinct from plan/architecture siblings. However, it never names or contrasts with the nearest alternatives such as generate_implementation_plan or recommend_architecture, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. An agent cannot tell from this text whether this tool should precede or follow generate_implementation_plan, or under what circumstances a migration strategy is the right artifact versus an implementation plan.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.